On 20 May 2021, the UK government published a consultation paper in which it set out its proposals to revise the current regime for insolvent insurers (excluding Lloyd’s underwriters). The proposals seek to clarify and enhance aspects of the existing “write-down” power of the court under Section 377 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Most corporate bankruptcy filings result in either a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) or a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code. Sometimes, however, neither option is viable and the debtor may need to seek a “structured dismissal” in accordance with Section 349 of the Code. Structured dismissals provide administratively insolvent debtors with a framework to distribute the estate’s remaining assets (without the additional cost of a Chapter 7 liquidation), wind down the estate, and obtain final dismissal of the case.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment entered in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) in a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim brought by Henry Losch (“Losch”) finding not only that Losch had standing to bring the claims but also that Experian’s investigation of Losch’s credit reporting dispute was not “reasonable as a matter of law.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d.b.a. Mr. Cooper, -- F. 3d. --, 2021 WL 1653016, *1 (11th Cir. April 28, 2021).
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a FCRA claim finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant did not have a “permissible purpose” to access the plaintiff’s credit report for collection of a mortgage debt that the plaintiff alleged was previously discharged in bankruptcy. In Andrea Billups v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 19 C 7873, 2021 WL 1648114 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that the Defendant mortgage server violated 15 U.S.C.
US Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath of the District of Delaware entered an order on April 21 in In re Nine Point Energy Holdings, Inc., Case No. 21-10570 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 21, 2021), finding that Caliber Measurement Services LLC, Caliber Midstream Fresh Water Partners LLC, and Caliber North Dakota LLC (together, Caliber) violated the automatic stay by sending “reservation of rights” letters to third parties that were providing services allegedly in violation of agreements between Caliber and Nine Point Energy Holdings, Inc.
The breadth and scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and the potential cost a company may face for violating the stay made national news last week in a dust-up between two telecom providers, when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court overseeing Windstream’s bankruptcy case ordered Charter Communications to pay Windstream more than $19 million in damages. The automatic stay is triggered immediately when a bankruptcy petition is filed.
The German Act on the Further Development of the Restructuring and Insolvency Law (Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechtsfortentwicklungsgesetz – SanInsFoG) took effect on January 1, 2021, transforming the European Restructuring Directive of June 20, 2019 ((EU) 2019/1023) and introducing a self-administrated restructuring option outside the standard insolvency proceeding.
The Pre-Insolvency Restructuring Plan
On January 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss filed by a consumer reporting agency in Ewert v. FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data, 2021 WL 168967 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2021). The plaintiff, Lance M. Ewert, filed a bankruptcy petition in 2017, identifying a Chase credit card account as a disputed debt. The credit card debt was ultimately discharged in the bankruptcy case.
Today, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding whether a creditor’s post-petition refusal to turnover bankruptcy estate property that it repossessed or impounded prepetition violates the automatic stay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the creditor and decided that it did not violate the automatic stay.
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that proceeds from property that was fraudulently transferred cannot be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] This decision limits a subsequent recipient’s exposure where the initial transferee of the property had altered the form of the property that was initially received prior to transferring it to that subsequent recipient.